Policy on individual and group bashing/berating.

LoveShack.org Questions and CommentsThe place to post any questions or comments you may have regarding LoveShack.org or the LoveShack.org Community Forums. Please Contact Us privately with any inquiries related to your personal account.

Above is the announcement that can be found site-wide regarding this new policy.

As there have already been several instances of this being acted on and several questions have been directed at moderation for clarification, this will be the place to do that.

As a starting point from some recent threads that tested the boundaries of the gender portion of this policy and did result in warnings and/or sanctions, here are a few examples of words that will be considered outside of the guidelines of the new policy.

This list is not all inclusive, and will be added to as time goes on and new terminology becomes apparent. This is a common sense rule, and posters are strongly urged to err on the side of caution.

This policy is open to discussion here, including the suggestion of terms to be included in the policy. Discussion in running threads following sanction or moderation directives may be consolidated here. ~T

---------------

For historical perspective, the impetus for what would later become this policy began with discussion regarding abusive content on our forum back in 2014, when the site owner was still stopping by and we had a head moderator, now retired. Sample below:

The first public allusion to what now has become our individual and group berating policy started with this post, back in April 2015, and we looked at reports and discussed the general concept among moderation for a number of months before bringing it public.

Are you saying any use of the above terms are prohibited, or only when used in a certain context deemed constitute group bashing? The former would seem awfully restrictive. I surely don't envy moderation having to draw a line on group bashing... it's hard to read any thread and not see vitriolic generalizations/condemnations based on gender and these kinds of biases.

Although I'm no certainly no stranger to infractions, I generally don't actively seek them out and I want to make sure of the ground I stand on.

I can't imagine ever calling anyone a "bitch" here, but I sure can see myself telling someone, probably a guy as far as you can tell that here, something along the lines of "you can bitch about it or you can do something about it". How would the word used in that context be treated?

Does the prohibition against the use of any of these "words" apply to the person that is the subject in a particular thread or post? Persons such as a WW, WH, WBF, WGF, OM / OW being written about?

Or is this directive aimed exclusively at preventing member to member insults?

Thank you!

No use of the terms will be tolerated regardless of who it is in reference to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GorillaTheater

One question:

Although I'm no certainly no stranger to infractions, I generally don't actively seek them out and I want to make sure of the ground I stand on.

I can't imagine ever calling anyone a "bitch" here, but I sure can see myself telling someone, probably a guy as far as you can tell that here, something along the lines of "you can bitch about it or you can do something about it". How would the word used in that context be treated?

Like I said, it is a common sense policy. Bitch as a verb will be permitted as well as in the context of a female canine (because you know someones going to ask that one next)

Quote:

Originally Posted by salparadise

Are you saying any use of the above terms are prohibited, or only when used in a certain context deemed constitute group bashing? The former would seem awfully restrictive. I surely don't envy moderation having to draw a line on group bashing... it's hard to read any thread and not see vitriolic generalizations/condemnations based on gender and these kinds of biases.

As there are plenty of more respectful terms available, consider anything on that list to be suspect.

Individual circumstances regarding context and use may be taken into consideration, that will be determined by the moderator handling the infraction.

using the most popular term as an example, if you choose to use the term slut, you do so at your own risk when the word promiscuous is available and perfectly acceptable. ~T

First, thanks to our new moderator for posting this, as member-started threads on the subject are prohibited and subject to sanction.

Second, constructive criticism is a hallmark of LoveShack.org, relevant to topics. The critical issue being addressed in this adjustment to published policy is designed to more closely align with it, essentially to 'reel in' language which should have been sanctioned prior but we let slide, generally due to lack of people and time to enforce the guidelines. Now, with more people to moderate, we can do a more comprehensive job of moderating and more closely follow the site owner's guidelines.

In my opinion, his reminder which we send to people for language really explains what we're doing here:

"Language & decency: Use language that not only reflects proper terminology, but that is in no way vulgar, profane, obscene, pornographic, demeaning, or pejorative to the subject being described or those contributing to the discussion"

The 'those contributing to the discussion' is obvious. We won't tolerate members bashing other members. The area which members brought to our attention and lobbied for was paying closer attention 'to the subject being described' and individuals or groups of people in those subjects being bashed with language in violation of our guidelines.

The adjustment primarily concerns language, words, phrases, and similar, not the ability to state opinions, argue points of view and have disagreements over subject material. Those realms continue unfettered. We're simply cleaning up the language to more closely comply with the site owner's directives. To the extent that the other moderators wish to discuss that process or share it here, I leave to them.

Although I'm no certainly no stranger to infractions, I generally don't actively seek them out and I want to make sure of the ground I stand on.

I can't imagine ever calling anyone a "bitch" here, but I sure can see myself telling someone, probably a guy as far as you can tell that here, something along the lines of "you can bitch about it or you can do something about it". How would the word used in that context be treated?

I'll be interested to see how the other moderators will deal with this; my response would be a nudge to suggest the use of 'complain' as in 'yeah, you can complain about it or you can do something about it'.

This example brings up a good point, also addressed in our published guidelines where the owner states the following:

"Language and decency

As a global community, it is important to recognize that not all participants are native speakers of English, nor are they all acquainted with colloquialisms popular in your particular area of the world. We expect that our community participants use language that not only reflects proper terminology, but that is in no way vulgar, profane, obscene, pornographic, demeaning, or pejorative to the subject being described or those contributing to the discussion. This is especially important to remember when dealing with sexual health issues."

Visitors from all over the world read this site and the owner recognizes that English and its colloquialisms may not be familiar to them so encourages members to post using clear and widely recognizable terminology.

In your example, 'complain', the conforming verb, would be widely understood. 'Bitch' could be interpreted a number of ways, from the word we use to describe a female canine to any number of interpretations about complaining. The group bashing part is our slang widely uses the word, practically never in a flattering or complimentary manner, to describe women.

Moderation won't inject itself into intent, rather simply moderate language according to the guidelines. We can't read member's minds but we can read the text on the page and, basically, this kind of language is on its way out from LoveShack.org.

Like I said, it is a common sense policy. Bitch as a verb will be permitted as well as in the context of a female canine (because you know someones going to ask that one next)

Quote:

Originally Posted by William

I'll be interested to see how the other moderators will deal with this; my response would be a nudge to suggest the use of 'complain' as in 'yeah, you can complain about it or you can do something about it'.

Not that there's a HUGE dichotomy here, but the somewhat different responses reflect my reason for asking in the first place.

I understand that I may be at somewhat of a risk if I use the term. I can deal with that.

Parts of this policy will evolve over time and this is a good example. If i am reading a post on my own and saw the term used in the context described, then I would be inclined to let it go. That is a decision on my part, open to interpretation.... a judgement call.

Now, if I was reading that post in response to an alert by another member that was offended, you would most likely here from me with a nudge and take things from there.

As a rule of thumb, if a better more respectful term is available, then choosing not to go that route will be at your own risk and any sanctions will be at the moderators discretion. ~T

Not that there's a HUGE dichotomy here, but the somewhat different responses reflect my reason for asking in the first place.

I understand that I may be at somewhat of a risk if I use the term. I can deal with that.

Yes, as the original William, my experience here is longer than all other active moderators and I've had more interactions with members who like to debate and get creative and essentially use their intellect as a weapon in discussions, so I tend to be more rigid in my interpretations because I know what a little wiggle room given can end up causing. Moderation will work out a unified response over time; my goal is to remove the words and that's it.

Words are tools. Members can reach into their toolbox of words and find other words to express their opinions. I found, in the first thread this new policy came to light in, it was amazing how fast members started using the word 'promiscuous' when they found themselves moderated for using the prohibited slang word. They know the words. We all do. We all make choices how we express ourselves.

Your point about consistency is well-taken. Perhaps the dominant moderation viewpoint will more closely align with that expressed by the new moderator. Time will tell. In the meantime, watch out for Agent Smith.

Since I received a report on a few posts in this thread and hadn't looked at it but saw 'Jesus' and 'Hypocrite' in the title, I figured it would be a perfect thread to add a link to our new announcement regarding an update to our bashing policy. Religion is in there, amongst other things, so here ya go:

Since I received a report on a few posts in this thread and hadn't looked at it but saw 'Jesus' and 'Hypocrite' in the title, I figured it would be a perfect thread to add a link to our new announcement regarding an update to our bashing policy. Religion is in there, amongst other things, so here ya go:

Moved a couple posts that were off-topic for their thread and the short answer is sexual orientation is covered under gender. IOW, bashing gay men and straight men is bashing men and bashing lesbian women and straight women is bashing women.

Moderation decided to keep things simple so that's what's going to happen. We deemed the existing policy matrix to cover the vast majority of contentious and complained about issues on the forum regarding bashing. Time will tell if that will play out in practice. So far it's working pretty well.

I trust and hope Moderators will address matters in a 'human' context.

In formal writing, such as the type of language and grammar used in say, a magazine article, certain terminologies, phrases and methods of written communication are certainly de rigueur and the general widespread publication demands a certain etiquette from the author.

One for example, would be astonished - not to say horrified - to find a 'Tatler', 'Vogue' or 'Interiors' article, containing colourful and emphatic language, and terms such as 'as-s-ho-le', 'bitch' 'bulls**t' and 'dickhead'....

However, this is a human forum, where there are constant interactions between people of all (adult) ages, and emotions are apt to run high.

May I tactfully suggest that for someone who has been deeply and emotionally hurt by the actions of someone they believed loved them, using terms such as -

"He was extremely nasty and hurt me deeply"

simply does not transmit or emphasise the emotions felt, as deeply, succinctly or precisely as perhaps -

"He was a total dick and as-swi-pe and he mindf**ked me" does....

While I completely understand the basis and motivation for this guideline (I have after all, brought certain posts to Moderation attention, myself), I am hoping a little leeway may be given for those who feel a need to vent and express their pain with some force of emphasis.

I, like Gorilla Theater, have experience in the realm of Infractions.
Damned if I'm going to push my luck a little too far...

But I'm merely investing the hope that Moderators can address posts as a means of communicating personal emotional intensity, and consider with some sympathy, their Moderative interjections....

Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.